Viral DRM Awarded Damages for Its 512(f) Claims, But At What Cost?

Viral DRM is a copyright enforcement agency focused on extreme weather videos. The first time I blogged about them, they brought a SAD Scheme suit that initially resulted in an ex parte TRO. However, the case fell apart on further proceedings when the court reconsidered jurisdiction and joinder. It’s so typical that SAD Scheme cases can’t survive actual scrutiny, unlike the deferential reviews courts apply at the ex parte TRO stage. The second time I blogged about them, their case fell apart because their purported exclusive enforcement rights weren’t sufficient to confer copyright standing.

On March 13, a district court issued 8 default judgment rulings in favor of Viral DRM. (The court may have issued more opinions than these 8; these are just the ones that hit my alerts). I didn’t take the time to trace if any of these 8 are the detritus of the cases I previously blogged about.

Based on the prior ruling about Viral DRM’s lack of copyright standing, the court rejects Viral DRM’s standing to enforce copyrights of the third-party content creators it claims to represent. The court also rejects Viral DRM’s standing to bring a 1202 CMI claim because the contract trail was too confusing for the court. The court shuts the door on Viral DRM’s further efforts to show it had standing:

Viral DRM has previously been granted leave to amend and has been afforded several opportunities to clarify its claims and the evidence in support of its claims. Each successive filing raises more questions than it answers. It is impossible to tell whether this is sloppiness or something nefarious, but the Court has expended tremendous resources trying to figure it out and has given Viral DRM chance after chance to clarify the record, but each response only muddies the record.

Sloppy or nefarious…porque no los dos?

The court does award damages for the 512(f) claims in some of the cases based on the defendants’ counternotifications. This produces a relatively rare plaintiff win under 512(f), where plaintiff wins usually occur only when the defendants no-show.

But…DRM’s “win” is not much of a win. Viral DRM requested damages between $2,500 and $12,500 for each 512(f) case, but the court says Viral DRM failed to provide the requisite support to compute those damages:

Viral DRM has failed to show it suffered any harm “as a result of” Defendant’s false counternotifications. Upon receipt of the DMCA takedown notice, YouTube took down the videos. There is no evidence YouTube put the videos back up upon receipt of the counternotifications, and the communication from YouTube indicates it would not do so provided Viral DRM took “legal action against the uploader”

Viral DRM pointed to the costs of preparing the takedown notices, but the court discounts those because those costs weren’t incurred in response to the allegedly bogus counternotifications. Instead, the court awards nominal damages of $1 per “bogus” counternotice—across the 8 lawsuits, this comes to $16 TOTAL. Viral DRM also gets post-judgment interest, so this should add a couple more cents to the total damages award.

I’m no math expert, but I’m pretty sure Viral DRM did not come out as an economic winner from these lawsuits. Across the eight lawsuits, it netted a total damages award that might be enough to buy a couple of Happy Meals. This does not sound like a route to profitability. Maybe Viral DRM can make it up in volume.

Case Citations:

Viral DRM LLC v. Ashgar, 2025 WL 822685 (N.D. Cal. March 13, 2025)
Viral DRM LLC v. Fadila, 2025 WL 822688 (N.D. Cal. March 13, 2025)
Viral DRM LLC v. Fuentes, 2025 WL 822690 (N.D. Cal. March 13, 2025)
Viral DRM LLC v. Lepetyuk, 2025 WL 822981 (N.D. Cal. March 13, 2025)
Viral DRM LLC v. Lietucheva, 2025 WL 822689 (N.D. Cal. March 13, 2025)
Viral DRM LLC v. Margarita, 2025 WL 822980 (N.D. Cal. March 13, 2025)
Viral DRM LLC v. Navez, 2025 WL 834498 (N.D. Cal. March 13, 2025)
Viral DRM LLC v. Shubstorsky, 2025 WL 822691 (N.D. Cal. March 13, 2025)

BONUS 1: Imposter Pastor Movie LLC v. Oliver, 2025 WL 819117 (E.D.N.C. March 14, 2025). Another plaintiff wins a default judgment for 512(f) violations. “[W]hen a plaintiff plausibly alleges that no reasonable copyright holder could have believed that material infringed a copyright, it is permissible to infer that the copyright holder did not subjectively believe the allegation of infringement in a DMCA takedown request.” Using a reasonable copyright owner’s perspectives is the opposite of proving the defendant’s subjective beliefs as required by the Rossi case, but plaintiffs can get away with this scienter bastardization on a default judgment.

The court also awards a default judgment for tortious interference based on bogus takedown notices, despite the many cases holding that 512(f) preempts state law equivalents (including the Hyphy case below). Again, plaintiffs can get away with this on a default judgment. The court awards the plaintiff $12k in damages and $34k in attorneys’ fees.

BONUS 2: Hyphy Music, Inc. v. Sena, 2025 WL 842893 (E.D. Cal. March 18, 2025). This is a copyright ownership dispute that spilled over to Spotify, who received takedown notices. That prompted the plaintiff’s claim for tortious interference, which the court says is preempted by 512(f): “Courts in the Ninth Circuit have held that 17 U.S.C. § 512(f) of the DMCA preempts state law claims based on DMCA takedown notifications because the rights asserted under state law are wholly encompassed by the Copyright Act.” Not a new legal standard, but it chafes me each time I see it.

Prior Posts on Section 512(f)

* Big YouTube Channel Gets TRO Against Being Targeted by DMCA Copyright Takedown Notices–Invisible Narratives v. Next Level Apps
* The Competition Between Temu and Shein Moves Into a Courtroom–Whaleco v. Shein
* Copyright Battles Over City Council Videos
* Record Label Sends Bogus Takedown Notice, Defeats 512(f) Claim Anyway–White v. UMG
* Plaintiffs Make Some Progress in 512(f) Cases
* 512(f) Doesn’t Restrict Competitive Gaming of Search Results–Source Capital v. Barrett Financial
* 512(f) Once Again Ensnared in an Employment Ownership Dispute–Shande v. Zoox
* Surprise! Another 512(f) Claim Fails–Bored Ape Yacht Club v. Ripps
* You’re a Fool if You Think You Can Win a 512(f) Case–Security Police and Fire Professionals v. Maritas
* 512(f) Plaintiff Must Pay $91k to the Defense–Digital Marketing v. McCandless
* Anti-Circumvention Takedowns Aren’t Covered by 512(f)–Yout v. RIAA
* 11th Circuit UPHOLDS a 512(f) Plaintiff Win on Appeal–Alper Automotive v. Day to Day Imports
* Court Mistakenly Thinks Copyright Owners Have a Duty to Police Infringement–Sunny Factory v. Chen
* Another 512(f) Claim Fails–Moonbug v. Babybus
* A 512(f) Plaintiff Wins at Trial! –Alper Automotive v. Day to Day Imports
* Satirical Depiction in YouTube Video Gets Rough Treatment in Court
* 512(f) Preempts Tortious Interference Claim–Copy Me That v. This Old Gal
* 512(f) Claim Against Robo-Notice Sender Can Proceed–Enttech v. Okularity
* Copyright Plaintiffs Can’t Figure Out What Copyrights They Own, Court Says ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
* A 512(f) Case Leads to a Rare Damages Award (on a Default Judgment)–California Beach v. Du
* 512(f) Claim Survives Motion to Dismiss–Brandyn Love v. Nuclear Blast America
* 512(f) Claim Fails in the 11th Circuit–Johnson v. New Destiny Christian Center
* Court Orders Rightsowner to Withdraw DMCA Takedown Notices Sent to Amazon–Beyond Blond v. Heldman
* Another 512(f) Claim Fails–Ningbo Mizhihe v Doe
* Video Excerpts Qualify as Fair Use (and Another 512(f) Claim Fails)–Hughes v. Benjamin
* How Have Section 512(f) Cases Fared Since 2017? (Spoiler: Not Well)
* Another Section 512(f) Case Fails–ISE v. Longarzo
* Another 512(f) Case Fails–Handshoe v. Perret
* A DMCA Section 512(f) Case Survives Dismissal–ISE v. Longarzo
* DMCA’s Unhelpful 512(f) Preempts Helpful State Law Claims–Stevens v. Vodka and Milk
* Section 512(f) Complaint Survives Motion to Dismiss–Johnson v. New Destiny Church
* ‘Reaction’ Video Protected By Fair Use–Hosseinzadeh v. Klein
* 9th Circuit Sides With Fair Use in Dancing Baby Takedown Case–Lenz v. Universal
* Two 512(f) Rulings Where The Litigants Dispute Copyright Ownership
* It Takes a Default Judgment to Win a 17 USC 512(f) Case–Automattic v. Steiner
* Vague Takedown Notice Targeting Facebook Page Results in Possible Liability–CrossFit v. Alvies
* Another 512(f) Claim Fails–Tuteur v. Crosley-Corcoran
* 17 USC 512(f) Is Dead–Lenz v. Universal Music
* 512(f) Plaintiff Can’t Get Discovery to Back Up His Allegations of Bogus Takedowns–Ouellette v. Viacom
* Updates on Transborder Copyright Enforcement Over “Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer”–Shropshire v. Canning
* 17 USC 512(f) Preempts State Law Claims Over Bogus Copyright Takedown Notices–Amaretto v. Ozimals
* 17 USC 512(f) Claim Against “Twilight” Studio Survives Motion to Dismiss–Smith v. Summit Entertainment
* Cease & Desist Letter to iTunes Isn’t Covered by 17 USC 512(f)–Red Rock v. UMG
* Copyright Takedown Notice Isn’t Actionable Unless There’s an Actual Takedown–Amaretto v. Ozimals
* Second Life Ordered to Stop Honoring a Copyright Owner’s Takedown Notices–Amaretto Ranch Breedables v. Ozimals
* Another Copyright Owner Sent a Defective Takedown Notice and Faced 512(f) Liability–Rosen v. HSI
* Furniture Retailer Enjoined from Sending eBay VeRO Notices–Design Furnishings v. Zen Path
* Disclosure of the Substance of Privileged Communications via Email, Blog, and Chat Results in Waiver — Lenz v. Universal
* YouTube Uploader Can’t Sue Sender of Mistaken Takedown Notice–Cabell v. Zimmerman
* Rare Ruling on Damages for Sending Bogus Copyright Takedown Notice–Lenz v. Universal
* 512(f) Claim Dismissed on Jurisdictional Grounds–Project DoD v. Federici
* Biosafe-One v. Hawks Dismissed
* Michael Savage Takedown Letter Might Violate 512(f)–Brave New Media v. Weiner
* Fair Use – It’s the Law (for what it’s worth)–Lenz v. Universal
* Copyright Owner Enjoined from Sending DMCA Takedown Notices–Biosafe-One v. Hawks
* New(ish) Report on 512 Takedown Notices
* Can 512(f) Support an Injunction? Novotny v. Chapman
* Allegedly Wrong VeRO Notice of Claimed Infringement Not Actionable–Dudnikov v. MGA Entertainment